Site Mobile Navigation

Ethics Panel Asked to Look Into Kennedy Leaks

ALBANY — The state’s top ethics panel is reviewing a request from three government watchdog groups to investigate the Paterson administration’s leaks of confidential information provided by Caroline Kennedy when she was seeking appointment to the United States Senate.

The ethics panel, the Commission on Public Integrity, is reviewing the request and has not decided whether to undertake an inquiry, its spokesman said on Thursday.

Such an investigation could complicate Gov. David A. Paterson’s bid to be elected in his own right next year, as it would remind voters of an embarrassing blunder and enmesh him and his top aides in a protracted inquiry.

Ms. Kennedy withdrew her candidacy just after midnight on Jan. 22 at the end of a chaotic selection process by the governor, who ultimately chose Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The groups calling for the investigation are the New York Public Interest Research Group, Common Cause New York, and Citizens Union. They argue in an eight-page letter, obtained by The New York Times, that the commission needs to determine whether the Paterson administration violated state laws by leaking confidential information about Ms. Kennedy as part of a political strategy aimed at deflecting blame for her withdrawal.

Various sections of the Public Officers Law bar a state official from disclosing “confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties” or from releasing “confidential information which he has gained by reason of his official position.” The groups’ letter cites potential violations of five sections of the Public Officers Law. It also cites potential violations of the Freedom of Information Law and the Personal Privacy Protection Law, both of which include protections against “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

“There are two issues for us,” Blair Horner, the legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, said in an interview. “One is that it appears to us there is an ethical violation and it should be investigated, and the second issue is that it’s a test of the commission. Are they willing to enforce the law without fear or favor?”

The commission has been reviewing the letter for two months. Walter Ayres, a spokesman for the panel, said there had been no decision on whether to proceed.

The commission’s work has likely been complicated because it has been operating without a chairman. John D. Feerick, the former chairman, stepped down Feb. 12, and Mr. Paterson was required by law to name a successor within 60 days. The state inspector general’s office has been reviewing the commission’s conduct in an investigation of the Spitzer administration that is continuing. An administration official said Mr. Paterson was waiting for the review’s results before naming a new chairman.

Photo

At issue are details leaked by the governors office about Caroline Kennedy.Credit
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

The commission has limited punitive powers. It can levy fines or make referrals to district attorneys or others with criminal jurisdiction. Its reports can cause political damage, and its investigations can be expensive for those in the panel’s cross hairs.

Josh Isay, a consultant who works for Ms. Kennedy, said she would have no comment.

Peter Kauffmann, the communications director for the governor, said, “We are confident that there were no violations of the Public Officers Law with respect to this matter, and any investigation into these allegations will confirm that.”

Ms. Kennedy’s withdrawal embarrassed the governor and ignited fears inside his administration that anyone else he picked would look like a second choice. Hours after Ms. Kennedy’s withdrawal, members of the administration called reporters and, insisting on anonymity, claimed that tax problems and issues with a domestic worker had emerged and had derailed her candidacy.

Those claims were highly exaggerated, all sides later acknowledged; no serious or disqualifying issues had arisen.

During the selection process, Ms. Kennedy and other candidates had filled out detailed questionnaires, and the administration had promised that “all legally permissible steps” would be taken to keep the form “strictly confidential” — those words appear in boldface atop the documents. The questionnaires asked candidates whether they had hired illegal immigrants, written controversial blog postings or failed to file tax returns, and it requested addresses of their children’s Facebook and MySpace pages.

The Paterson administration argued during the selection process that the questionnaires did not have to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law, citing exemptions for invasions of “personal privacy.” Administration officials refused to even release blank copies of the forms. The government watchdog groups argue that releasing some of the most personal information in the questionnaires may have violated those privacy provisions.

The governor’s poll numbers plummeted after the Senate selection debacle, and his exposure in any investigation could be considerable. He initially said he had no involvement in the smears against Ms. Kennedy, but in an interview with The Times in February, he acknowledged that he personally ordered his staff to contest her version of events after she withdrew.

But he said he was bewildered that his staff had unleashed the harsh personal attacks, saying he merely wanted to counter assertions that she had been his first choice.

The governor said he told his staff, “Let’s try to point out that we’re not indicating that anybody is the No. 1.”

“I understood we’d be pushing back for that,” he added. “How that turned into what happened is something I have to take responsibility for.”

The watchdog groups say there must be an inquiry to clear the air.

“We urge the commission to undertake an inquiry, which we believe will have a salutary effect,” they write in their letter, “either clearing the executive chamber from a lingering ethical taint or vindicating the public’s interest by restoring integrity to the appointment process.”

A version of this article appears in print on , on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Ethics Panel Is Asked to Investigate Kennedy Leaks. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe